Thank you Soo for the Michael Leunig´s prayers.
It´s a very poetic and precise way to put it out.
And I do agree with you Elisabeth about the Canadian Statement !
Else
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Duff" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: c - Section and social pathology
> I am sure most list members will be aware of the publication in June 2004 of
> the Canadian Association of Midwives' position statement on elective CS
> (accessible at
> http://members.rogers.com/canadianmidwives/docs/ElectiveCSfinalJune04.pdf).
> It is very articulate on the subject of a culture of fear being created by
> birth intervention and technology, and deplores the treating of 'childbirth
> as a problem to be solved rather than a process to be respected'.
>
> It may be worth another look in the course of this debate. I have referred
> to its themes in an article that also centres on childbirth fears due to be
> printed in the December issue of MIDIRS Digest.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Soo Downe" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "(Elizabeth Duff)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: c - Section and social pathology
>
>
> > Has anyone considered the following aspects which may have an impact on
> > the cs debate?:
> >
> > 1. Most women when asked antentatally would prefer a normal birth, even
> > in countries such as Brazil where the cs rates are very high
> >
> > 2,. Most births we record as 'normal' are not - they may be a
> > spontaneous vaginal delivery, but they are preceded by interventions
> > such as induction, augmentation, epidurals, fetal blood sampling, ARM,
> > episiotomy &etc.
> >
> > 3. It may not be suprising then that women hear stories of terrible
> > 'normal' births from their friends (or they that experience this
> > themselves) and they are made afraid, and therefore request cs as a way
> > out of this (aberration of) 'normality'.
> >
> > 4. this situation arises because many midwives are afraid of birth, and
> > cannot support women for their wished for physiological birth.
> >
> > 5. while negative birth stories are very powerful, so are positive
> > birth stories.
> >
> > The concusion than is that many women may not be afraid of childbirth
> > per se, but of the kind of technological birth we are offering them at
> > present. I also conclude that, though work such as that you are doing
> > Else is vital, we cannot ultimately solve the cs problem by looking at
> > cs and womens views of it. In the end, we can only really reduce cs and
> > other interventions by maximizing physiological birth and our midwifery
> > skills, beliefs, trust and respect of it. Each positive birth we
> > facilitate generates stories in the community that infect women
> > positively and, maybe, that reduce fear proportionately. This has an
> > exponential effect if the women who hear the positive stories also have
> > positive births.
> >
> > A propos of this, at a recent normal birth conference in New Zealand,
> > Karen Guilliand presented the following quote which I think provides
> > significant food for thought in this area:
> >
> > There are only two feelings: Love and fear. There are only two
> > languages: Love and fear. There are only two activities: Love and fear.
> > There are only two motives, two procedures, two frameworks, two results.
> > Love and fear.
> >
> > Michael Leunig's prayers from A Common Prayer
> >
> >
> > Maybe if midwives can move from fear towards love we may change the
> > situation from the bottom up? These are the areas I am planning and
> > undertaking research in. They may provide additional possibilities for
> > insights into your findings Else, which I am sure will be fascinating
> >
> > Id be interested in everyones views on this!
> >
> > all the best
> >
> > Soo
> >
> > Professor Soo Downe
> > Director
> > Midwifery Studies Research Unit
> > University of Central Lancashire
> > Preston PR1 2HE
> > Lancashire
> > England
> >
> > +44 (0) 1772 893815
> >
> >
> > tel: 01772 893815
> >
> >>>> [log in to unmask] 11/09/04 03:29pm >>>
> > Thanks to all for your reflections and suggestions.
> > I thought of another issue: the fact that some pregnant women
> > -even those who want to make use of the choise for a c-section,
> > inquired, don t like having the choise at all. Because, as someone
> > tells me:
> > "It complicates everything, I would rather have been without that
> > speculation"
> > Such opinions don t prove anything, of course, but they might be
> > interesting for
> > further research.
> >
> > Else
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Patricia Burkhardt" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: c?Section and social pathology
> >
> >
> >> I just sent a reference from Maternity Center Association re the
> > issue of c-sections and what women need to know. Pat
> >>
> >>
> >> Patricia Burkhardt, CNM, DrPH
> >> NYU Midwifery Program Coordinator
> >> Tel: 212 998-5895
> >> Fax: 212 995-4679
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Janet Brooks CNM, MPH" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2004 7:39 am
> >> Subject: c?Section and social pathology
> >>
> >> > Else,
> >> > I think this is a wonderful topic to research. Here in the USA I
> >> > see so many
> >> > women who are convinced that C/section is the safest way to have a
> >> > baby.Even when counseled about ??risks and ??benefits they still
> >> > say they have a
> >> > choice and that this is their choice. i do not know any papers on
> >> > this topic, but
> >> > you could research ACOG website (American College of OB/GYN) and
> >> > see their
> >> > position papers on elective C/section. Also the ICAN webite---
> >> > www.ican.org .
> >> >
> >> > Best of luck, I would love to hear updates on your work,
> >> > Janet Brooks, CNM, MPH
> >> >
> >>
>
|